/Address  of  Charles  H.  Wacker,  Chair- 
man Chicago  Plan  Commission,  in  favor  of 
the  Petition  of  the  South  Park  Commis-- 
sioftefs  to  the  United  States  Government 
for  Permission  to  Create  a  Park  along 
the*  Lake  Front  of  Chicago  between 
Grant  Park  and  Jackson  Park. 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  AND  BOOKSTACKS 

The  person  borrowing  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  renewal  or  return  before 
the  Latest  Date  stamped  below.  You  may 
be  charged  a  minimum  fee  of  $75.00  for 
each  non-returned  or  lost  item. 

Theff,  mutilation,  or  defocement  of  librory  materials  can  be 
causes  for  student  disciplinary  action.  All  moterials  owned  by 
the  University  of  lllinoii  Library  are  the  property  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  and  are  protected  by  Article  16B  of  lllwols  Criminal 
Law   and  Proceduro. 

TO  RENEW,  CAU  (217)  333-8400. 
University  of  Illinois  librory  g|  Urbano-Champaign 


0^2  0  200! 

AUG  22  2m 

OCT  0  4  2004 
OCT  29  P.M. 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date 
below  previous  due  date.  L162 


Address  of  Charles  H.  Wacker,  Chair- 
man Chicago  Plan  Commission,  in  favor  of 
the  Petition  of  the  South  Park  Commis- 
sioners to  the  United  States  Government 
for  Permission  to  Create  a  Park  along 
the  Lake  Front  of  Chicago  between 
Grant  Park  and  Jackson  Park. 


Submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United 
States,  at  Washington,  D.  C,  on  November  20,  1913 


Address  of  Chairman  Charles  H.  Wacker 

of  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission 
before  the  Secretary  of  War,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  November  20, 1913,  in 
Re  the   Lake   Front  Improvement 


Mr.  Secretary  and  Gentlemen : 

As  Chairman  of  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission,  and  as 
a  member  of  the  Chicago  Harbor  Commission  of  1909,  and 
as  a  citizen,  I  desire  to  say,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  I  favor 
the  park  development  along  the  lake  front  from  Grant  Park 
to  Jackson  Park,  as  planned  by  the  South  Park  Commis- 
sioners, for  the  following  reasons: 

FIRST:  I  know  that  the  people  of  Chicago  are  fully 
informed  as  to  what  is  contemplated  in  the  plans  for  the 
improvement  of  the  lake  front  as  proposed.  The  first  sug- 
gestion for  the  development  of  a  lake  front  park  came  from 
the  famous  landscape  architect,  Mr.  Olmstead  of  Boston. 
in  the  report  to  the  South  Park  Commissioners  made  as 
early  as  1870.  - 

The  steps  in  the  present  plan,  however,  were  as  follows: 

(a)  The  inception  of  the  idea  just  after  the  World's 
Fair,  1893. 

(b)  A  proposal  by  the  South  Park  Commissioners 
during  the  year  following  the  Fair  for  the  improvement  of 
the  lake  front  from  Jackson  Park  to  Grant  Park. 

(c)  In  1896  the  illustrious  Daniel  H.  Burnham  pre- 
sented to  the  South  Park  Commissioners,  and  exhibited  be- 
fore the  Commercial  Club,  a  design  for  park  development 
from  Grant  Park  to  Jackson  Park. 


(d)  The  adoption  of  Mr.  Burnham's  report  as  a  part 
of  the  Plan  of  Chicago  by  the  Commercial  Club  of  Chicago. 

(e)  The  appointment,  in  1909,  of  the  Chicago  Plan 
Commission  to  study  and  develop  the  Plan  of  Chicago. 

(f)  The  approval,  in  1909,  with  certain  reservations, 
of  the  lake  front  plan  as  proposed  in  the  Plan  of  Chicago,  by 
the  Chicago  Harbor  Commission,  created  by  a  resolution  of 
the  City  Council,  and  appointed  by  the  Mayor  "primarily  to 
consider  the  question  as  to  whether  any  part  of  the  Chicago 
lake  front  should  be  reserved  for  possible  future  harbor 
uses."  (See  pp.  41,  42,  Chicago  Harbor  Commission  Re- 
port, Exhibit  B.) 

That  Commission  was  composed  of  Engineers  John  M. 
Ewen  and  Isham  Randolph,  Frederick  A.  Delano,  engineer 
and  President  of  the  Wabash  Railroad,  Alderman  Charles 
M.  Foell,  Alderman  Peter  Hoffmann,  Alderman  John  P. 
Stewart,  Charles  H.  Conover,  of  Hibbard,  Spencer,  Bartlett 
&  Co.,  and  Charles  H.  Wacker. 

(g)  In  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  unanimous  vote 
of  the  City  Council  on  January  25,  1910,  for  the  creation  of 
a  Lake  Shore  Reclamation  Commission,  the  Preamble  re- 
cited as  follows: 

"WHEREAS,  sundr}'  private  interests  and 
corporations  claim  ownership  to  large  portions  of 
the  shore  of  Lake  Michigan  laetween  Indiana  State 
line  on  the  south,  and  Devon  Avenue  on  the  north, 
and 

"WHEREAS,  the  said  lake  shore  should  be 
forever  held  by  the  City  of  Chicago  or  by  the  sev- 
eral park  boards  within  said  city  in  trust  for  all  the 
people  for  recreation  and  park  purposes." 

(h)  Practically  the  only  question  discussed  before  the 
Council  Committee  on  Harbors,  Wharves  and  Bridges,  dur- 
ing hearings  on  the  agreement  between  the  South  Park 
Commissioners  and  the  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company, 
was  whether,  under  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  the- rights 
of  the  people  were  sufificiently  protected.  Thre  was  no 
opposition  to  the  plan  to  build  a  parkway  improvement. 


The  protest  of  the  Committee  of  Citizens,  by  whose 
intervention  the  more  favorable  terms  in  the  agreement  of 
March  30,  1912,  and  the  supplemental  agreement  of  June  26, 
1912,  w^ere  secured,  was  expressly  put  upon  this  ground.  In 
the  original  communication  of  this  committee  to  the  Mayor 
and  Council,  dated  January  23,  1912,  it  was  stated: 

"The  signers  of  this  statement  believe  in  lake 
front  park  development." 

Alderman  Long,  Chairman  of  the  Lake  Shore  Reclama- 
tion Commission  of  the  City  Council,  stated  upon  pages 
208-9  of  the  report  of  that  Commission  issued  in  1912: 

"While  it  is  apparent  from  the  foregoing  pro- 
ceedings before  the  Committee  on  Harbors, 
Wharves  and  Bridges,  and  before  the  courts,  that 
there  was  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  rela- 
tive to  the  adjustment  of  the  details  of  the  Illinois 
Central  case,  it  is  also  true  that  there  never  was 
any  real  difference  between  the  several  persons 
who  took  part  in  the  proceedings  as  to  the  results 
sought  to  be  attained." 

The  report  of  the  sub-committee  of  the  City  Council 
Committee  on  Harbors,  Wharves  and  Bridges,  of  1911, 
treats  this  subject  most  comprehensively,  and  all  through 
the  narrative  of  their  deliberations  they  concur  in  the  ulti- 
mate realization  of  a  parkway  plan  between  Grant  and  Jack- 
son parks.  They  also  recognize  that  there  is  no  necessary 
conflict  between  such  a  plan  and  such  harbor  development 
as  in  the  future  may  be  needed. 

(i)  Wide  publicity  was  given  the  acquisition  of  the 
riparian  rights  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 
and  other  shore  owners,  by  the  South  Park  Commissioners. 

(j)  The  Mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago  vetoed  an  ordi- 
nance for  the  creation  of  the  so-called  "Harbor  District  No. 
3,"  which  appropriated  for  harbor  purposes  the  submerged 
lands  and  waters  between  Grant  Park  and  31st  Street,  be- 
cause the  ordinance  would  have  interfered  with  the  plans 
of  the  South  Park  Commissioners  to  connect  Grant  Park 
and  Jackson  Park  by  a  parkway.  The  veto  was  sustained, 
and  the  harbor  ordinance  defeated  on  November  27,  1912, 


f\ 


by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  City  Council.  An  agreement 
had  been  reached  between  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  South 
Park  Commissioners,  evidenced  by  a  resolution  of  the  South 
Park  Commissioners  that,  in  consideration  of  the  city's 
withdrawing  the  ordinance  for  Harbor  District  No.  3.  ex- 
tending from  Grant  Park  to  31st  Street,  which  would  have 
interfered  with  the  plans  for  a  parkway  improvement,  the 
South  Park  Commissioners  would  permit  the  city,  if  occa- 
sion arose,  to  utilize  for  harbor  purposes,  all  submerged 
lands  between  16th  and  22nd  Streets. 

Said  resolution  further  provided  that  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago might  enter  across  and  over  any  lands  which  might  be 
owned  or  acquired  by  said  South  Park  Commissioners  with 
not  more  than  six  (6)  tracks  on  or  adjacent  to  either  16th, 
18th,  19th,  20th  or  21st  streets,  and  that  the  city  might  also 
use  and  occupy  a  right  of  way  from  41st  Street  to  16th 
Street  for  not  more  than  four  (4)  tracks  located  immediately 
east  of  the  right  of  wa)'  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
Company,  connecting  with  the  trunk  lines  at  41st  and  16th 
streets;  it  being  further  understood  that  the  Commission- 
ers would  grant  to  the  city  free  and  suitable  access  to  said 
harbor  when  established. 

All  I  have  so  far  said,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  said  to 
bring  to  your  mind  the  large  number  of  opportunities  the 
people  have  had  to  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
proposed  improvement  between  Grant  Park  and  Jackson 
Park. 

SECOND:  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  whenever 
public  interest  requires  the  establishment  of  a  harbor  any- 
where along  the  lake  front  between  Grant  Park  and  Jack- 
son Park,  it  will  be  within  the  power  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
by  apt  legislation,  to  appropriate  the  submerged  lands  and 
riparian  rights  for  that  purpose. 

The  South  Park  Commissioners  is  onl}^  an  agency  of 
the  State,  and  the  State  which  today,  in  response  to  an  over- 
whelming public  opinion,  provides  that  the  submerged  lands 
between  Grant  Park  and  Jackson  Park  may  be  utilized 
for  the  creation  of  an  outer  parkway  to  enable  the  people  of 
the  city  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  lake,  can  tomorrow,  if 
the  business  interests  or  the  public  interests  of  Chicago  de- 


mand  it,  change  the  application  and  appropriate  the  same 
lands  and  rights  for  one  or  more  harbors. 

At  the  present  time  nobody  can  say  that  there  is  a  de- 
mand for  a  harbor  between  Grant  Park  and  Jackson  Park, 
except  possibly  in  the  vicinity  of  16th  Street,  where  in  the 
opinion  of  engineers,  a  harbor  could  be  developed  without 
interference  with  the  Parkway  improvement. 

Aside  from  that,  the  need  of  a  harbor  between  Grant 
Park  and  Jackson  Park  is  only  a  remote  and  speculative 
contingency;  it  is  not  a  present  condition.  The  real  ques- 
tion, is  therefore,  whether  until  such  contingency  arises,  if 
it  ever  does  arise,  the  lake  front  shall  remain  in  its  present 
condition,  a  priceless  but  imrealized  asset,  or  whether 
through  favorable  action  by  the  Government  upon  the  pend- 
ing application  of  the  South  Park  Commissioners,  the  Com- 
missioners shall  be  put  in  a  position  to  begin  work  upon  an 
improvement  which  is  now  feasible  and  earnestly  desired, 
and  make  the  lake  front  available  for  the  people. 

THIRD:  By  our  present  method  of  dumping  out  in 
the  lake  we  are  creating  a  great  danger  to  navigation  in 
building  submerged  lands  in  and  around  our  harbor  en- 
trance, to  say  nothing  about  endangering  the  health  of  our 
people. 

It  is  senseless  thus  to  waste  material  worth  millions, 
and  a  crime  to  permit  the  pollution  of  our  city's  water  sup- 
ply, after  having  expended  approximately  $63,000,000  to 
insure  its  purity. 

FOURTH :  A  parkway  can  be  created  along  the  lake 
front  by  the  utilization  of  the  waste  material  of  the  city, 
without  practically  any  cost  to  the  city.  See  Journal  of  the 
Proceedings  of  the  City  Council,  dated  September  25,  1911, 
under  the  caption  *"Lake  Front  Improvement"  (Exhibit 
"A"),  in  which  I  stated  that  no  public  improvement  that 
could  ever  be  accomplished  by  the  City  of  Chicago  would 
be  more  wise,  economically  beneficial  and  generally  appre- 
ciated by  the  people  than  the  creation  of  a  large  additional 
park  space  along  the  city's  waterfront,  by  the  construction 
of  breakwaters  for  the  retention  and  utilization  of  Chicago's 
waste  material. 

■^Reprinted  on  Page  13. 


A  shameful  waste  is  permitted  of  a  vast  amount  of  such 
material  that  could  be  utilized  at  practically  no  cost  to  the 
city  in  developing  the  lake  front  for  park  playgrounds,  for 
the  use  of  all  the  people;  where  family  picnics,  baseball,  ten- 
nis and  all  manner  of  outdoor  sports  could  be  freely 
indulged  in. 

The  establishment  of  this  health  and  pleasure-giving 
possibility  would  cause  a  tide  of  gratitude  to  flow  towards 
the  creators  thereof  that  nothing  in  all  time  could  stem  or 
stop. 

FIFTH:  In  all  our  educational  propaganda  we  have 
pointed  out  the  necessities  for  the  lake  front  improvement 
as  proposed  in  the  Plan  of  Chicago,  as  material  for  the  health 
and  happiness  of  our  people,  hygienically  and  socially,  and 
found  that  that  aspect  of  the  project  met  with  universal 
approval. 

The  health-giving  lake  front  should  be  reclaimed  for  the 
uses  of  the  people.  All  crosstown  lines  should  be  extended 
to  the  Illinois  Central  right  of  way,  so  that  the  people  in 
congested  districts  on  the  West  Side  could  reach  the  bathing 
beaches,  pleasure  piers  and  the  park  areas  at  an  expenditure 
of  only  five  cents  and  in  the  shortest  possible  time. 

Statistics  prove  that  the  physical  development  of  men 
in  large  cities  is  deteriorating,  hence,  from  a  hygienic  point 
of  view,  the  importance  of  creating  more  bathing  beaches, 
pleasure  piers,  playgrounds  and  small  parks. 

It  will  enable  the  South  Park  Commissioners  to  create 
a  pleasure  pier  at  22nd  Street,  and  two  new  bathing  beaches 
along  the  lake  front. 

For  health  and  good  order,  there  should  be  one  acre 
of  park  space  to  each  100  population.  In  Chicago  the  aver- 
age is  only  one  acre  for  780.  In  the  thickly  populated  dis- 
tricts there  are  5,000  people  to  one  acre  of  park  space. 

It  will  give  to  the  people  five  miles  of  new  parks — or 
1,550  acres — of  which  from  75  to  100  acres  can  be  created 
annually  without  practically  any  additional  cost  to  the  city. 

SIXTH :  The  projection  of  Michigan  Avenue  from 
Randolph  Street  north  to  Chicago  Avenue,  combined  with 


the  improvements  proposed  by  the  South  Park  Commission- 
ers, and  outlined  in  the  Plan  of  Chicago,  from  Grant  Park 
to  Jackson  Park,  would  give  to  Chicago — without  in  any 
way  interfering  with  harbor  developments — a  waterfront 
more  useful  and  more  imposing  than  the  waterfront  of  any 
other  city  in  the  world. 

FINALLY:  The  City  of  Chicago  will  never  require 
more  commercial  harbors  than  can  be  built  between  the  river 
and  Chicago  Avenue;  between  the  river  and  Randolph 
Street;  and  between  16th  and  22nd  Streets. 

Most  people  do  not  realize  that  it  does  not  require  more 
than  about  25  per  cent  of  dockage  to  handle  the  same 
amount  of  freight,  thanks  to  improved  machinery,  for  load- 
ing and  unloading  and  handling  generally,  that  it  required 
twenty-five  years  ago. 

The  industrial  harbor  developments  will  take  place  in 
South  Chicago  and  in  the  Calumet  district,  where  water 
and  rail  can  easily  be  brought  together,  where  railway  facili- 
ties are  unsurpassed,  where  industrial  developments  are 
greatest  and  where  property  for  industrial  purposes  can  be 
acquired  cheaply. 

In  all  the  controversy,  running  over  a  period  of  two 
years,  about  the  park  development  of  the  lake  front,  does  it 
not  strike  one  as  strange  that  if  menace  actually  exists  to 
future  harbor  needs,  the  navigation  interests  most  primarily 
affected  have  not  come  forward  and  fought  the  issue?  No 
opposition  from  navigation,  commercial  or  industrial  inter- 
ests to  the  park  development  has  been  heard.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  of  these  interests  have  spoken  for  the  parkway 
development. 

Numbered  among  the  advocates  of  this  plan  are  also, 
in  addition  to  the  South  Park  Commissioners,  Governor 
Dunne,  the  city  administration,  the  Drainage  Board,  the 
Harbor  Commission,  the  Commercial  Club  of  Chicago,  the 
Chicago  Association  of  Commerce,  Chicago  Board  of  Trade, 
Real  Estate  Board,  and  others,  and,  I  dare  say,  if  they  had  a 
voice  in  the  matter,  99  per  cent  of  the  two  and  a  half  million 
people  of  the  city  of  Chicago. 


Aside  from  the  reasons  which  I  have  advanced  for 
granting  the  application  of  the  South  Park  Commissioners, 
there  is  this  consideration  which  seems  to  me  to  be  very 
important,  namely,  that  the  people  of  Chicago  should  be  per- 
mitted to  determine  for  themselves  whether  that  part  of  the 
lake  front  between  Grant  Park  and  Jackson  Park  should  be 
developed  as  a  parkway  or  held  indefinitely  in  statu  quo  for 
a  possible  harbor  development,  which  may  never  be  required, 
particularly  if  such  parkway  development  in  no  wise  inter- 
feres with  navigation. 

I  have  previously  indicated  that  the  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  has  deliberately  approved  the  plan 
to  establish  a  parkway  between  Grant  Park  and  Jackson 
Park.  The  South  Park  Commissioners  is  now  ready  to 
carr}'^  out  this  plan.  It  has  also  received  the  support  of  the 
most  substantial  commercial  bodies  in  our  city.  It  has  been 
favored  by  civic  organizations  and  by  our  leading  public 
spirited  citizens,  and  there  has  been  practically  no  dissent 
anywhere.  It  is  therefore  urged  and  hoped  that  the  united 
appeal  of  the  people  of  Chicago  will  prevail,  and  that  this 
work  be  not  delayed  a  single  hour  longer  than  is  absolutely 
necessary. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
Chairman  Chicago  Plan  Commission. 


10 


Reprint  of  the  Lake  Front  Improve- 
ment Recommendation,  submitted  by 

Charles   H.  Wacker,  Chairman 

Chicago  Plan  Commission,to  the  City 
Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  Septem- 
ber 25, 1911,  at  Request  of  the  Council 


Submitted  to  the  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
on  September25,1911,  and  forming  a  part  of  the  Journal 
of  the  Proceedings  of  the  City  Council  of  that  date 


Chicago,  Sept.  23, 1911. 

Hon.  Francis  D.  Cannery,  City  Clerk,  City  Hall,  Chicago,  III.: 

Dear  Sir — In  response  to  your  letter  of  July  26,  calling 
my  attention  to  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  City  Council 
J  July  10,  1911,  directing  certain  city  officials  to  make  reports 
with  reference  to  the  creation  of  islands  in  Lake  Michigan 
through  the  deposit  of  waste  material  from  the  city  streets 
and  alleys. 

As  Chairman  of  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission,  I  re- 
spectfully submit  the  following,  in  compliance  with  Para- 
graph 4  of  said  resolution,  which  reads: 

"That  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission  be  requested  to 
advise  this  Council  whether  such  a  plan  for  the  disposal 
of  the  City's  excavation  and  spoil  as  is  herein  contem- 
plated, can  be  used  in  conjunction  with  said  Commis- 
sion's program  of  creating  an  outer  driveway  in  Lake 
Michigan,  from  Twenty-second  street  and  South  Park 
avenue  to  the  Ohio  street  outer  drive  extension  on  the 
North  Side." 

No  public  improvement  that  could  ever  be  accomplished 
by  the  City  of  Chicago,  would  be  more  wise,  economically 
beneficial  and  generally  appreciated  by  the  people,  than  the 
creation  of  a  large  additional  park  space  along  the  City's 
water  front,  by  the  construction  of  breakwaters  for  the  re- 
tention and  utilization  of  Chicago's  vast  amount  of  waste 
material  available  for  such  purpose. 

New  York  is  already  utilizing  her  waste  material  in 
building  new  land  at  her  water's  edge.  Is  there  any  reason 
why  Chicago  should  not  do  the  same? 

I  have  repeatedly  made  the  statement  in  public  when  ad- 
vancing the  Plan  of  Chicago,  that  it  is  little  less  than  a  crime 
that  Chicago  expended  $60,000,000  in  building  the  Drainage 
Canal  for  the  purpose  of  clarifying  the  City's  water  supply 
and  then  to  permit  the  waters  of  the  lake  to  again  become 
polluted  by  the  dumping  therein  of  the  City's  ofifal. 

15 


This  important  hygienic  feature  is  only  one  phase  of 
the  question.  It  presents  an  economic  side  of  the  utmost 
importance.  Great  expense  is  involved  in  carrying  by  lighter- 
age much  of  Chicago's  waste  material  and  dumping  it  far 
out  into  the  lake.  This  also  permits  the  shameful  waste  of 
a  vast  amount  of  valuable  material  that  could  be  utilized  at 
practically  no  cost  to  the  City  in  developing  the  lake  front 
for  park  playgrounds  for  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  people; 
where  family  picnics,  baseball,  tennis  and  all  manner  of  out- 
door sports  may  be  freely  indulged  in.  The  establishment 
of  this  health  and  pleasure  giving  possibility  would  cause 
a  tide  of  gratitude  to  flow  toward  the  creators  thereof,  that 
nothing  in  all  time  could  stem  or  stop. 

Result — Instead  of  endangering  the  public  health  of  our 
citizens,  means  are  provided  to  conserve  that  most  valuable 
asset.  The  City  would  also  gain  realty  value  worth  many 
millions.  It  took  six  years  to  fill  Grant  Park  of  150  acres, 
with  excavation  material. 

What  could  the  City  sell  Grant  Park  for  today?  What 
is  Grant  Park  worth  to  Chicago?  How  much  did  it  cost? 
These  are  questions  worth  thinking  about. 

In  ten  years,  the  City  of  Chicago  could  add  seven  or 
eight  Grant  Parks  by  utilizing  the  waste  material  available 
alone  for  such  purpose. 

The  chief  concern  of  Chicago  should  be  the  public 
health  of  its  citizens — its  greatest  asset.  The  Chicago  Plan 
demands  more  and  larger  parks  and  playgrounds.  Every 
human  life  is  a  national  asset  and  should  be  carefully  pre- 
served. 

It  is  a  matter  of  governmental  record  in  countries  where 
conscription  to  army  service  is  compulsory,  that  the  physique 
of  the  city  dwellers  is  degenerating.  Only  a  relatively  small 
percentage  of  those  living  in  congested  cities  are  able  to 
measure  up  to  the  strict  requirements  of  military  service. 

In  the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  only 
3  per  cent  of  the  nation's  population  lived  in  cities.  In  fifty 
years,  this  has  increased  to  more  than  40  per  cent.  Ten  per 
cent  of  the  population  of  the  United  States,  now  live  in  three 
cities.  New  York,  Chicago  and  Philadelphia. 

16 


In  the  past  the  problem  confronting  our  people  in  the 
rapidly  growing  cities,  was  to  provide  gas,  electric  light, 
pure  water,  adequate  schools  and  public  institutions  for  the 
sick  and  improvident. 

The  problem  of  our  great  cities  today  and  for  the  future, 
is  and  will  be,  to  provide  light,  air,  ample  means  for  healthful 
recreation,  relief  from  congestion,  facilitation  of  trafific  and 
attractive  surroundings  for  the  multitudes  swarming  to  the 
cities. 

The  laws  of  hj'giene  show  Chicago's  park  area  to  be 
inadequate  and  entirely  out  of  proportion  to  the  population. 
For  health  and  good  order  there  should  be  one  acre  of  park 
space  for  each  100  people.  Our  present  average  for  the 
entire  city  is  about  780  persons  to  the  acre.  One-half  of 
Chicago's  population  lives  more  than  one  mile  from  any 
large  park,  while  in  the  congested  sections,  there  are  nearly 
5,000  persons  to  each  acre  of  park  space. 

In  1880,  Chicago  with  a  population  of  503,305,  was  the 
second  American  city  in  park  area.  During  the  past  30 
years  it  has  dropped  to  eighth  place.  Figuring  it  by  acreage 
of  park  space  to  each  100  people,  by  what  might  be  called 
density  of  population,  it  occupies  37th  place. 

Practically  all  of  our  large  park  areas  were  added  to  the 
city  in  10  years,  between  1870  and  1880. 

Chicago  has  since  added  one  and  three-quarter  million 
people  to  her  population,  without  adding  any  large  park 
space. 

Acres. 

Park  area  of  Chicago  is  approximately 3,600 

Boston  has  more  than 12,000 

New  York 8,000 

Philadelphia  more  than 4,000 

Los  Angeles  about 4,000 

The  question  of  additional  park  space  has  been  given 
the  widest  possible  attention  in  the  Chicago  Plan  now  being 
studied  and  promoted  by  the  Chicago  Plan  Commission. 
Lake  front  plans  provide  in  detail  for  the  improvement  and 
extensive  acquisition  of  park  area  along  the  City's  front,  by 
utilizing  Chicago's  waste  material. 

17 


In  no  other  way  can  the  City  add  so  expeditiously  and 
economically,  large  tracts  of  land,  magnificently  located  for 
park  and  health-giving  pleasure  purposes. 

This  is  a  work  that  should  not  be  delayed  a  single  hour 
longer  than  is  absolutely  required  to  comply  with  all  neces- 
sary legal  procedure.  It  is  the  only  plan  I  know  of  whereby 
something  can  be  had  for  nothing. 

The  cost  of  building  breakwaters  or  retaining  walls 
could  be  entirely  provided  for  by  the  moneys  received  from 
private  contractors  for  the  privilege  of  dumping  the  City's 
excavation  material  close  in-shore  in  place  of  taking  it  far 
out  into  the  lake. 

Let  these  contractors  build  Chicago's  Lake  Front  Park. 
What  they  would  have  to  pay  the  City  for  that  privilege, 
without  costing  them  any  more  than  it  does  now,  would  do 
it.  With  such  a  golden  opportunity  before  us,  why  should 
these  be  any  delay? 

Another  reason  for  not  delaying  action  is  this — if  Chi- 
cago does  not  soon  take  steps  to  secure  to  itself  the  necessary 
riparian  rights  of  private  ownership,  somebody  else  will,  and 
our  lake  front  will  be  lost  to  us  for  all  time  to  come.  We 
have  had  some  experience  in  that  line. 

The  people  of  Chicago  know  their  lake  front  only  at 
Jackson,  Lincoln  and  Grant  Parks.  Five  miles  of  Chicago's 
lake  front  for  the  people,  out  of  a  total  of  twenty  or  thirty 
miles.  Who  will  be  held  accovmtable,  if  the  people  are  not 
given  wider  opportunity  to  enjoy  their  natural  heritage? 

It  is  not  contemplated  that  this  work  shall  be  ac- 
complished in  a  day  or  a  year,  but  to  gradually  create  this 
park  as  rapidly  as  can  be.  Figures  prove  that  100  acres  each 
year  could  be  made  by  utilizing  Chicago's  waste  material 
and  practically  at  no  cost. 

4,600,000  cubic  yards  of  waste  material  is  the  an- 
nual product  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

2,000,000  cubic  yards  go  into  the  lake.    This  is  from 
excavation  material  alone. 

It  costs  80  cents  per  load  of  two  cubic  yards,  by  pri- 
vate contract,  to  remove  1,000,000  loads  each  year  out  in 

18 


the  lake  from  the  disposal  stations  of  Contractors  Jack- 
son at  Madison  street,  Krug  at  Washington  street  and 
Anderson  at  Lake  street. 

It  costs  an  additional  70  or  80  cents  per  load  to  haul 
the  1,000,000  loads  of  excavation  material  by  wagon 
from  where  it  originates  to  these  three  disposal  stations. 

When  the  wagons  are  once  loaded  it  would  be  just 
as  easy  for  the  contractors  to  carry  it  to  the  lake  front 
and  deposit  it  as  to  carry  it  to  the  disposal  stations, 
hence  there  would  be  a  saving  of  the  additional  80  cents 
per  load  required  to  take  it  out  into  the  lake.  Add  to  this, 
20  cents  per  load  for  loading  and  reloading  at  the  dis- 
posal stations  and — 

$1.00  per  load  for  1,000,000  loads  per  year,  from  pri- 
vate contractors,  is  what  the  City  could  realize  from 
that  source  alone.  A  fine  annual  sum  to  build  break- 
waters with.  While  the  land — 100  acres  per  year  is 
creating  itself  for  nothing — priceless  land.  Did  any  city 
ever  have  such  an  opportunity? 

No,  because  where  is  the  city  with  a  water  front  like 
Chicago's? 

In  1909,  the  City  hauled  1,200,000  cubic  yards  of 
ashes  and  rubbish  to  the  City's  dumps.  These  are  being 
rapidly  filled.  It  is  only  a  question  of  time  when  new 
dumping  places  far  removed  from  the  City  will  have  to 
be  located.  It  would  cost  the  city  at  the  rate  of  20 
cents  per  cubic  yard,  or  an  annual  $224,000  to  dispose 
of  this  one  item  alone,  if  hauled  outside  by  the  railroads, 
based  on  1909  figures.  The  City's  ashes  and  rubbish 
could  easily  be  deposited  along  the  lake  shore  if  proper 
provision  is  made,  thereby  efifecting  a  saving  to  the  City 
of  one-quarter  of  a  million  dollars  annually. 

In  1911  the  173  manufacturing  plants  on  the  Mil- 
waukee and  St.  Paul  Road  alone  produced  a  total  of  71,- 
792  cubic  yards  of  waste.  Sixty  per  cent  of  this  had  to 
be  disposed  of  at  heavy  cost  by  private  means.  It  is 
estimated  that  there  are  22,000  manufactttring  plants 
located  in  Chicago.  The  above  figures  indicate  that 
from  this  source  an  enormous  amount  of  waste  material 

19 


is  being  annually  produced  and  not  calculated  in  the 
City's  figures. 

1,330,000  cubic  yards  of  new  excavation  will  come 
from  the  Sanitary  District  in  the  next  several  years, 
and  in  addition,  there  will  be  a  vast  amount  of  routine 
dredgings  and  spoil  from  the  Calumet  Channel. 

Another  factor  in  making  up  Chicago's  enormous 
tonnage  of  waste  material  is  1,700,000  cubic  yards  of 
cinders  and  ashes  from  one  year's  consumption  of  coal. 
Part  of  this  is  moved  in  city  wagons  and  part  by  private 
means. 

The  near  future  will  present  a  serious  proposition  in  re- 
gard to  the  City  dumps.  As  stated,  those  available  are  now 
nearly  filled. 

Finally — By  our  present  methods  of  using  the  lake  for 
a  dumping  ground  we  are  creating  a  great  danger  to  naviga- 
tion in  building  submerged  lands  in  and  around  our  harbor 
entrance. 

It  is  senseless  to  thus  waste  material  worth  millions, 
and  as  I  have  already  said,  a  crime  to  permit  the  pollution 
of  ovir  City's  water  supply  after  having  expended  approx- 
imately $63,000,000  to  insure  its  purity.  Chicago  must  arouse 
herself  and  not  let  the  Lake  Front  advantage,  knocking 
loudly  at  her  door,  slip  away. 

Very  truly  yours, 


Chairman. 


20 


